Asymmetries between Passivization and Antipassivization in the Tarramiutut Subdialect of Inuktitut
(7) [I] presented [Lou] [with some flowers]
Download 78.17 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- (10) [I] baked [Mary] [the cake]
(7) [I] presented [Lou] [with some flowers](8) [I] gave [the book] [to John]
Applicative constructions and benefactive shift create derived core arguments, which are not actually semantic arguments of the verb. The motivation for this claim comes from the fact that applicative constructions and benefactive shift often effects the position and marking of the shifted noun phrase, and these processes often feed passivization. Thus, “Mary” in example (10) below is a derived core argument. (10) [I] baked [Mary] [the cake]In some cases, arguments which are semantic arguments of the verb are not core arguments. This includes arguments with a demoted status which are usually omitted. Thus, by-phrases in English are not core arguments. Rather, they are peripheral adjuncts. Argument adjuncts are semantic arguments of the verbs which are introduced by a preposition which gives additional semantic information that is not specified by the verbal semantics. Both of the italicized PPs in (11) and (12) are argument adjuncts. (11) I put the book in the bag. (12) I ran out of the house Peripheral adjuncts include elements which are not part of the semantic representation of the verb which have not been made into derived core arguments of applicative or benefactive shift constructions. All of the italicized PPs in (13) to (16) are peripheral adjuncts.(13) I saw John in the library. (14) I baked the cake for Terry. (15) I saw Mary after the Party.
Verbal arguments with a demoted status which are usually left unexpressed are also considered to be peripheral adjuncts. The by-phrase in example (17) is a peripheral adjunct. (17) Mary was seen by John.
In this section, I will argue that the quantifier, atuniit, “each”, is sensitive to a core versus peripheral distinction. When used as a floated quantifier, there are restrictions on what nouns it may or may not be construed with. I will argue that the generalization is that atuniit may be construed with a plural NP if it is a core argument, when atuniit is placed in a position which is discontinuous from the plural NP. However, atuniit may not be construed with a peripheral adjunct if atuniit is placed in a position discontinuous from the peripheral adjunct. It should be noted, however, that, for many of the examples which I have tested, where it is not possible for atuniit to be construed with a peripheral adjunct, grammaticality is restored if atuniit is placed in a position immediately following the peripheral adjunct. The asymmetry between core arguments and peripheral adjuncts which will be the main focus of this section only applies to sentences where atuniit is placed in a position discontinuous from the plural noun phrase. This test will be used to illustrate that, while secondary case-marked arguments in passives pattern with core-arguments, dative NPs in passives pattern with peripheral adjuncts. This is consistent with the accusative view of antipassivization, since accusative undergoers in nominative/accusative languages are assumed to be core arguments. 3.1 Basic Pattern of Quantification with Atuniit The basic pattern of quantification with atuniit is summarized in (18). Ergative actors may be construed with atuniit. Similarly, absolutive NPs may be construed with atuniit, whether they express the undergoer in an ergative or a passive construction, or the actor in an antipassive construction. In contrast, the dative NP in passive constructions may not be construed with atuniit, when atuniit is placed in a position discontinuous from the dative NP. However, secondary case-marked NPs in antipassives can be construed with atuniit, when atuniit is placed in a position discontinuous from the plural noun phrase. (18) Actor Undergoer ergative constructions yes yes antipassive constructions yes yes passive constructions no yes Example (19) illustrates that atuniit can be construed with an ergative actor in an ergative construction when atuniit is used as a floated quantifier. (19) anguti-it arnaq taku-laur-ta -ngat atuniit man-ERG.pl woman(ABS) see-PAST-IND-3plA:3sU each ‘The men each saw the woman.’ Similarly, example (20) illustrates that atuniit may also be construed with an absolutive undergoer in an ergative construction, when placed in a position discontinuous from the absolutive NP. (20) arna -up anguti-it taku-laur -ta -ngit atuniit woman-ERG man-ABS.pl see-PAST-IND-3sA:3plU each ‘The woman saw each of the men.’
(21) anguti-it arna -mik taku-laur -tu -it atuniit man -ABS.pl woman-SEC see -PAST-IND-3pl each The men each saw a woman. Similarly, secondary case-marked undergoers in antipassive constructions may also be construed with atuniit, when atuniit is used as a floated quantifier, as illustrated by example (22). (22) arnaq anguti-nik taku-laur -tuq atuniit woman(ABS) man -SEC.pl see -PAST-IND(3s) each The woman saw each of the men.
woman(ABS) man -DAT.pl see -PASSPRT-be-PAST-IND(3s) (*each) The woman was seen by (*each of) the men.
man-ABS.pl woman-DAT see-PASSPRT-be-PAST-IND-3pl each The men were each seen by the woman.
(25) qimirqua-mik anguti-nut aittu-i-laur-tu-nga atuniit book -SEC man -DAT.pl give-AP-PAST-IND-1s each “I gave a book to each of the men.” 3.3 Other peripheral adjuncts Stronger evidence for claiming that atuniit is sensitive to a core versus peripheral distinction comes from the fact that NPs which do not express semantic arguments of the verb may not be construed with atuniit, when atuniit is used as a floated quantifier. This is illustrated by the fact that the locative expression in (26), meaning “in the libraries”, cannot be construed with atuniit, when atuniit is placed in a position discontinuous from the locative NP. Since “in the libraries” is not a semantic argument of the verb in this sentence, it is, therefore, a peripheral adjunct. (26) qimirquaqarvi-ni Jaani taku-sima-ja-ra (*atuniit) library-LOC.pl John see-PERF-IND-1s:3s (*each) ‘I have seen John in (*each of) the libraries.’ Similarly, the dative NP in (27) expresses an instrument which is not a semantic argument of the verb in this sentence. Unsurprisingly, it cannot be construed with atuniit, in its use as a floated quantifier. (27) qirmusijauti -nut nanuq taku-ja -u -laur -tuq (*atuniit) binoculars -DAT.pl bear(ABS) see -PASSPRT-be-PAST-IND(3s) (*each) The bear was seen with (*each of) the binoculars.
The difference in the status of secondary case-marked undergoers in antipassives and dative NPs in passives can be related to a difference in use. In passives, the dative NP is usually omitted. It is left semantically unspecified with a meaning “someone, people, something, or some things.” Manga (1996a,b) has illustrated that it is also possible to omit the undergoer in antipassive constructions, in which case the undergoer is left semantically unspecified. However, this does not represent the canonical use of the antipassive. Manga (1996a,b) uses several tests to illustrate that there is a difference in the interpretation of the undergoer in ergative constructions and antipassive/accusative constructions. Absolutive undergoers in ergative constructions get a specific interpretation, whereas this is not a requirement for secondary case-marked NPs in antipassive constructions. Berge (1997) has pointed out that, in texts, antipassivization is most commonly used when the undergoer represents new information. This appears to be the most canonical use of the antipassive. The possibility of omitting a secondary case-marked NP is unremarkable, since any NP can be dropped in this language. The fact that the omitted argument is interpreted as “someone, something, people, or things” is related to the tendency for undergoers to be interpreted as non-specific indefinites. In contrast, omission of the actor can be argued to be the most canonical use of the passive voice. While the actor is clearly part of the semantic representation of the verb, we can claim that it is an inherent property of the passive construction that the actor is left unspecified. A general property of peripheral adjuncts is that they add information which is not generally associated with the predicate. Thus, the status of dative by-phrases as peripheral adjuncts stems from the fact that the most canonical use of the passive construction is with the actor unspecified. 4. Two types of causatives, atuniit, and interclausal binding This section will investigate two types of causatives, tit, and naq. In tit-causatives, the derived verb stem can undergo an alternation between ergative and antipassive voice. In the antipassive voice, it is one of the arguments of the incorporated verb stem which is placed in secondary case. This argument is placed in absolutive case in the ergative voice. The corresponding argument is usually omitted in naq-causatives, though it may optionally be expressed in dative case. Section 4.1 will illustrate that, when tit-causatives are antipassivized, the argument placed in secondary case may be construed with atuniit. Section 4.2 will illustrate that the dative argument associated with naq-causatives may not be construed with atuniit. Since the dative expression in naq-causatives is similar to dative by-phrases in passives in that it is usually omitted, and the floated quantifier test yields similar results for the two constructions, I will suggest that the dative NP is a peripheral adjunct in both constructions. Section 4.3 will investigate interclausal binding as it interacts with these two types of causative constructions. In the interclausal binding test, imminit, “than self”, has an antecedent which is introduced in another clause. It will not be possible to go through a complete overview of what the restrictions are on what does or does not constitute a possible antecedent for interclausal binding, since space is limited. The data presented will, however, illustrate that there is a contrast with respect to interclausal binding, as it relates to the two types of causatives which will mirror the asymmetry observed with atuniit. While secondary case-marked arguments associated with antipassivized tit-causatives can be antecedents for interclausal binding, dative by-phrases associated with naq-causative constructions cannot be. 4.1 Tit-causatives and atuniit Example (28) is an instance of a tit-causative in ergative voice. In this example, tit has been suffixed onto the intransitive verb aanniaq “be sick”2. For simplicity, all of the examples in this section will make use of incorporated intransitive verbs. It should be noted, however, that the pattern for incorporated transitive verbs is quite similar. In this example, the single argument of the incorporated verb, angutiit, “men” is placed in absolutive case. Example (28) also illustrates that this absolutive NP can be construed with atuniit. (28) anguti-it aannia-ti -laur -ta -ngit atuniit man -ABS.pl sick -TIT-PAST-IND-3sA:3plU each “It made each of the men sick” The antipassive version of (28) is given in (29). In the antipassive, the single argument of the incorporated intransitive verb is placed in secondary case. Example (29) also illustrates that the secondary case-marked NP in constructions involving antipassivized tit-causatives can be construed with atuniit. (29) anguti-nik aannia -tit –si -laur -tuq atuniit man-SEC.pl be.sick-TIT-AP-PAST-IND(3s) each “It made each of the men sick”
be.sick-NAQ-PAST-IND(3s) “It made people sick”
(31) anguti-nut aannia-na-laur-tuq (*atuniit) man -DAT.pl be.sick-NAQ-PAST-IND(3s) (*each) “It made (*each of) these men sick” Because the dative NP in naq-causatives is generally omitted, leaving the argument in question semantically unspecified, and the floated quantifier test yields similar results for dative NPs in both naq-causative constructions and in passives, it seems reasonable to suggest that dative NPs in naq-causatives have the same status as by-phrases in passives. The data from naq-causatives supports the view that an NPs status as a peripheral adjunct is related to its use. Peripheral adjuncts add information which is not usually coded in a sentence headed by the verb which heads that sentence.
This section will show the interaction of the two types of causatives with interclausal binding. While secondary case-marked arguments in antipassivized tit-causatives can be antecedents for interclausal binding, dative NPs in naq-causatives cannot be antecedents for interclausal binding. These data will be considered additional supporting evidence for the claim that dative by-phrases have a different grammatical status from secondary case-marked NPs in antipassive constructions. The main clauses in the examples in this section will be in the form given in 32, below. (32) Jaani -mit takinirsaqalaurtuq3 John -ABL there.was.someone.taller “There was someone taller than John.” In the examples of interclausal binding in this section, the ablative NP will be imminit, “than self”, and its antecedent will be in a dependant clause. In example (33), the dependent clause is translated as “although the giant was in Iqaluit”. In this sentence, Imminit takes inutjuaq “giant” as an antecedent. (33) immi-nit [inutjuaq iqalunnii -galuar -su-ni] takinirsaqalaurtuq self -ABL giant(ABS) be.in.Iqaluit-although-APP -3s there.was.someone.taller “Although the gianti was in Iqaluit, there was someone/something taller than himi/heri”
Because the examples which I have collected are morphologically complex, a staged derivation is given in (34a-d). The clause in (34d) will be the dependent clause used to test the interaction of interclausal binding and naq-causativization. In (34a), a third person singular indicative suffix has been added to a verb root, meaning “run”, to get “he/she is running.” Example (34b) differs in that guma, “want” has been suffixed onto “run”, before the indicative suffix has been added. The resulting word means, “he/she wants to run”. In (34c), naq has been suffixed after guma, “want”. The word created means, “it makes people want to run”. However, a dative NP has been added which expresses the single argument of the incorporated predicate, “wants to run”, yielding, “it makes John want to run”. In (34d), a number of additional suffixes have been added in place of the indicative morphology, resulting in a clause meaning, “although it made John want to run.” (34) a) ulla-tuq run-IND(3s) “He/she is running.” b) ulla-guma-juq run-want-IND(3s) “He/she wants to run.” c) ulla-guma-nar-tuq Jaani-mut run-want-NAQ-IND(3s) John-DAT “It makes John want to run.” d) Jaani-mut ulla-guma-na -raluar -ti -lu -gu John-DAT run-want-NAQ-although-OBV-APP-3s “Although it made John want to run....” In example (35), 34(d) is used as a subordinate clause, where the main clause means, “there was someone faster”. While it is similar in form to example (33), where the interclausal binding test was introduced, it is ungrammatical to place imminit, “than self” at the beginning of this sentence. 35. (*immi-nit) [Jaani-mut ulla-guma-na -raluar-ti -lu -gu] sukannisaqalaurtuq self -ABL [John-DAT run-want-NAQ-indeed-OBV-APP-3s] there.was.someone.faster ‘Although it made John want to run, there was someone faster (*than self).’
36. Anni -mit [Jaani-mut ulla-guma-na -raluar -ti -lu-gu] sukannisaqalaurtuq Anni -ABL [John-DAT run-want-NAQ-indeed-OBV-APP-3s] there.was.someone.faster “Although it made John want to run, there was someone faster than Anni.” The next couple of examples will be used to illustrate that secondary case-marked NPs in antipassivized tit-causatives can be antecedents for interclausal binding. Example (37) is a subordinate clause which is minimally different from the one used in the previous two examples (35 and 36). Naq has been replaced by tit, which in turn has been antipassivized. As predicted, the single argument of ullaguma, “want to run”, is placed in secondary case, rather than in dative case. 37. Jaani-mik ulla -guma-tit -si -galuar –ti -lu -gu John -SEC run-want -cause-AP-although-OBV-APP-1s “Although he/she/it made John want to run....”
self -ABL John-SEC run-want -cause-AP-although-OBV-APP-3s] there.was.someone.faster Although he/she/it made Johni want to run, there was someone faster than himi. The data in this section have reconfirmed that there is a syntactic asymmetry between secondary case-marked arguments in antipassives and dative by-phrases in constructions where the argument in question is usually left semantically unspecified. Van Valin and LaPolla (1997) have claimed that, in many languages, there is a restriction that antecedents for anaphoric binding must be core arguments. Such a restriction is used to explain why it is not possible to have an anaphor in subject position which is bound by a by-phrase in languages such as English. These data are consistent with an approach which treats dative by-phrases in passives as peripheral adjuncts rather than core arguments, and with the claim that binding phenomena are frequently sensitive to a core versus peripheral distinction. The data in this section have also added further support to the claim that an NP’s status as a core argument versus a peripheral adjunct is related to its use, since whether a dative NP patterns with core arguments or peripheral adjuncts can be predicted. Both passives and naq-constructions involve dative NPs which are usually omitted, leaving the argument in question semantically unspecified, and the dative NP patterns with peripheral adjuncts in both constructions. Peripheral adjuncts allow NPs to be introduced into the syntax, which are not usually semantically specified in sentences headed by the verbal predicate. Core arguments express arguments which are usually semantically specified in sentences headed by a given verbal predicate. It appears that, given the range of constructions containing a dative NP that have been presented in sections (3) and (4), these criteria have been adequate to determine whether or not an NP patterns with peripheral adjuncts or core arguments. In a personal communication, George Aaron Broadwell has suggested that it may be useful to investigate an analysis of the status of by-phrases in passives which makes reference to the discourse properties of the construction. I believe that the status of dative by-phrases as adjuncts can most likely be understood in these terms. The actors in these constructions, because they are usually omitted, are grammaticized, such that, in the unmarked case, they play no role in the continued discourse. In the case of the passive, when the actor is topical, either the ergative voice or the antipassive voice will be preferred, since, in both of the ergative and antipassive voices, if the NP expressing the actor is omitted, the sentence is interpreted with pronominal reference for the actor. There is little reason to use the passive in this context. Similarly, since the actor is usually omitted in passives, the passive is most likely not the unmarked voice used in situations where the actor is new information. If this is the case, than we can claim that, in the passive voice, the actor has been grammaticized to be unlikely to play an important role in the continued discourse. Similar arguments can be made for the naq-causative. In cases where the actor represents either old or new information, the tit-causative is most likely preferred. If we claim that it is an inherent property of passives and naq-causatives that the actor is unlikely to play an important role in the continued discourse, then it is unsurprising that dative by-phrases in naq-causatives cannot be antecedents for interclausal binding. Within the LFG framework, Broadwell (2003) has proposed that the most promising way to account for some of the differences between two types of passives in Kaqchikel, is to have constructional templates which give pairings between argument structure, functional structure, and information structure settings. Using these constructional templates, he is able to specify both the oblique agent and the SUBJECT in one of the passive constructions as being restricted to (-new) information. This accounts for a number of syntactic restrictions associated with that construction. It may prove to be interesting to see if a similar discourse feature can be used to account for the adjunct status of dative by-phrases in passives and naq-causatives. 5. “Lexical Intransitivization” in RRG (based on (Van Valin and LaPolla 1997)) While the previous two sections have argued that, while passivization demotes the actor to the periphery, antipassivization does not, there is an other mechanism in RRG which would allow the secondary case-marked NP to be treated as a core argument, but which would treat it differently from accusative undergoers in nominative/accusative languages. This other mechanism is known as “lexical intransitivization”. In “lexical intransitivization”, an argument retains its status as a core argument, but fails to be assigned status as either an actor or an undergoer. Section (4.1) will be a review of the role of undergoers in Role and Reference Grammar. In section (4.2), I will argue that the interaction of antipassivization and dative shift is not captured easily in a lexical intransitivization account, and that it is preferable to claim that undergoers are present in antipassive constructions. The status of secondary case in antipassive constructions, as a case which is given to core undergoers, is analogous to the status of the accusative case in nominative/accusative languages. 5.1 Ditransitive verbs and dative shift in RRG (Van Valin and LaPolla 1997, Van Valin 2001) In RRG, a verb may only have one actor and one undergoer. This restriction necessitates an analysis of ditransitive verbs where one of the arguments is not treated as either an actor or an undergoer. It also allows for an analysis of dative shift constructions where the alternation between shifted and unshifted forms depends on which argument is treated as the undergoer. In (39), “the book” is treated as the undergoer, whereas in (40), “John” is treated as the undergoer. (39) I gave the book to John. (40) I gave John the book. This analysis has the advantage that, in some dialects, the subject of passives is restricted to undergoers. Sentence (41) is the passive of sentence (39). The undergoer has been given subject status in (41), but it has not in (39).(41) The book was given to John. Similarly, example (42) is the passive of example (40). (42) John was given the book. For many speakers, example (43) is ungrammatical. This is an alternative passive of (40), where the subject is not an undergoer. (43) %The book was given John Directory: group group -> What is ascaa? group -> Tiger Leaps Progress Update from Tenafly High School March 28, 2012 English group -> Personal Data: Name : Prasanna. S educational Qualification group -> Terry L. Root group -> Traffic alert and Collision Avoidance System or tcas group -> 1980s Type Card Master List from Standard Catalog 1980 Burger King Phillies group -> Abstract: The article presents aspects of the automobile tinkering culture and its transformations in different socioeconomic contexts within Europe in the 20 group -> Lima Site 85 Personnel List group -> General knowledge Download 78.17 Kb. Share with your friends:
|